New features, bittersweet farewells

Indeed.

Good luck, and here's hoping the town lives up to its name.


translation: rumor has it that The Union's editor will be editing elsewhere.

Blog comments etiquette question

Scientific experiments get their illuminatory power from the researcher's willingness to specify, before s/he sees the results, what a 'fair' process for interpreting them would be.

Thus research is the opposite of public relations - if we consider "spin" to be "creative interpretation of the data so as to support a predetermined conclusion", PR flacks try to maximize 'spin', researchers try to eliminate it.

And the way they eliminate it is by deciding ahead of time, "if the data were to come out looking like X, I would conclude Y" - in other words, by posing and answering hypothetical questions.

This is a hugely powerful tool, that goes a long way toward controlling for our natural tendency to interpret the data so as to favor our preferred conclusion.

And - coming from a science background - I hate to see a perfectly good tool lying unused, when it could be so helpful.

Which is why it drives me batty when NCFocus blog commenters refuse to answer hypothetical questions - it says to me that their goals aren't mine, they're here for fighting/winning, not for learning.

(some people would disparage this as a "litmus test" - but one man's litmus test is another woman's valuable tool for discerning mindsets.)


So, the etiquette question is this: is it reasonable for the blog owner to say "I want the comments to be worth my time, I want them to be for learning not for fighting", and to achieve this by restricting commenting to those individuals who will answer hypothetical questions?

If the site was my living room, I'd definitely want to invite learners in and not invite fighters back.

So it's tempting to do the same here, but it also brings to mind the adage "if you want to test someone's character, don't give them adversity, give them power" - i.e. this might be a very bad idea, either inherently or as the start of a slippery slope toward comment-toadyism.

And there's a BIG positive externality, that comes from having a place where people from different walks and philosophies of life talk to each other, even if nobody's mind gets changed on the specific issues - and if you narrow the functionality and prerequisites, you'll lose that.

(State: still a little bit cranky, thinking aloud, not ready to stand behind any conclusions, feeling a bit guilty about coming down too hard on today's commenter whose comment I haven't approved (yet), and definitely in need of sleep. I will be wiser tomorrow.)

Councilmember Barbara Coffman selects Dix Sullivan for Planning Commissioner

An NCFocus scoop:

Earlier this morning, incoming Nevada City councilmember Barbara Coffman* selected local business owner Dix Sullivan as her planning commissioner. Mr. Sullivan owns the Golden Flower Trading Co. on Commercial Street below York St., abutting the back of Broad St.'s Posh Nosh restaurant. Sullivan was instrumental in bringing the Chinese Quarter Monument(*) into existence, and can be seen on the far right in the photo here.

According to Yubanet, incumbent councilman (and looking soon to be mayor; my idea* was never implemented) Steve Cottrell is appointing local architect Greg Wolters, who:

graduated from Cal Poly with honors, has been in business for twenty years and been involved with a wide range of architectural pursuits including passive solar and other energy-efficient designs.

According to The Union here:

• Incumbent Councilmembers Sally Harris and David McKay's planning commissioners are John Parent and Evans Phelps, respectively.
  
• Sheila Stein is appointing local attorney and software consultant Robert Bergman, saying:
  
  "He will bring common sense, an analytical mind, great integrity and a calm presence to the commission table...Applicants will find him to be fair, consistent and objective."

In other news, Ms. Coffman's city council suggestion box, "Tell It to Barbara", has been installed on the wall at Java John's on Broad St.
Many thanks to Mr. U. Utah Phillips for conjuring up the box, title, notebook, and inaugural suggestion*, and for co-conjuring up the original idea.

Roger Ebert reviews An Inconvenient Truth

Appended comments from Andrew Tobias.

From Ebert's review of An Inconvenient Truth:

Global warming is real, and unless it is reversed, the planet will pass a "tipping point" in about 10 years and start a slide into the destruction of civilization. ... This documentary...[is] fascinating and relentless.
In 39 years I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, has said, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." I hope he takes his job seriously enough to see this film. I think he has a responsibility to do that.

And Andrew Tobias:

I’ve gotten a lot of very smart people emailing me to debunk the movie. To each, I always answer: have you seen it? And in each case the answer has been: no.

The feeling of many ... is that so long as there is some chance we are not doomed, we should not act. ...

But the feeling of most who go see the movie is that everybody else ought to see the movie.

New comments policy, hopefully temporary

Too many people have been interpreting the NCFocus comments policy as literature rather than instructions, so I've instituted comment moderation for now. Comments that I don't see as adding value will not be published, and I'm a bit cranky at present, thus perhaps less able to see value which would otherwise be apparent.

Corollary: I'm instituting a moratorium on movie criticisms from people who haven't seen it.
(Although if you want to just email me with your real name and say "I would like to criticise the film although I have not seen it", I will happily publish your name with this statement; this information _is_ valuable.)

Today's words of wisdom:

Never mistake a mirror for a window.

p.s. for those who are now at loose ends, here's a constructive use for your time - the Sunlight Foundation (link) needs your help for their project to scrutinize the financial disclosures of all members of Congress and the House of Representatives.

All members; surely at least one will pique your interest.

Meanwhile, back in the state of denial

no substantive responses to yesterday's post asking for insight into how we can get a critical mass of the community to see An Inconvenient Truth.


Mind if I join you, in turning away and slapping the blinders back on?


Yesterday was the deadline for the county Recorder's Office to certify the June 6 election results*.
The final vote count (reported June 24 here) landed Barbara Coffman* upon Nevada City's City Council, by a margin of of 31 votes. She will be sworn in next Monday, July 10.
Disambiguation: she is the attorney in Nevada City, not the therapist in Grass Valley.

Articles in The Union mentioning Barbara are here.

Her office hours will be 8-9am most mornings at Java John's. However, you need not show up in person; our hyperlocal luminary is scouring the thrift stores for a Suggestion Box to hang upon the wall, that those who are shy or late to rise might nonetheless deposit their intellectual capital for our City's benefit.

(A man of many and varied talents, he also contributes the inaugural suggestion: raise revenue for infrastructure repair by holding muleback rides down into the potholes, for tourists.)



"Reality is that which, when you refuse to believe in it, doesn't go away."

An Inconvenient Truth, a pressing question

edited Wed a.m.

I saw An Inconvenient Truth tonight.

"the atmosphere is as thin as a coat of varnish on a globe ..."

"we probably have about 10 years left to do something"

"it's no longer a scientific issue, it's now a moral issue."

It shows the most compelling graphs I will ever see.


Everybody whose mind isn't locked needs to see this film.

Our community leaders need to see the film.

People who tend to see government as a team sport need to see the film.
How do we reach these people, and get them to see it?

We can't just agree to disagree and freely do what we want here, we only have the one planet among us. It's the ultimate externality; we have to pull together on this one.

Apologies for the trite sincerity here, but I really _am_ stumped on how to get through the ritual warfare. The war now is against an enemy of our own making.

(Starting tomorrow it's at Del Oro for at least a week.)

Michael - and other readers for whom global warming hasn't been high on the priority list - you've got a perspective that I lack, and we need your input here - what would encourage people who're skeptical to go and see the film?

and YES I realize I'm part of the problem. I'm sorry.
-----------
Added wed. eve, via Agricola over at Xark:

Robert Samuelson's The Real Inconvenient Truth:

The practical conclusion is that, if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology.... Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it.

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.

Backtracking - Qs on ethics of payola punditry

In discussion with a commenter on yesterday's "Dubner Oath" post, I realized that I jumped the gun by hauling out the Oath; it would have been better to ask about values instead. So, in accordance with best practices of the Better Late Than Never school of citizen journalism:

Russ and George, on the record, do you believe that payola punditry is an unsavory practice?
(And if there are circumstances under which it would be morally acceptable, what are they?)

Please answer in the comments here, if you want to answer, or remain silent if that's your preference; I'm asking not because I want to hound you but because I'd be remiss if I didn't ask.



(in brief, for readers: a payola pundit is someone who publicly marshals arguments and evidence to support a particular viewpoint without disclosing that he or she is being compensated, directly or indirectly, for doing so.)

Resurrecting the Dubner Oath

Jeffrey Dubner started it here:

I swear that I have never taken money -- neither directly nor indirectly -- from any political campaign or government agency -- whether federal, state, or local -- in exchange for any service performed in my job as a journalist (or commentator, or blogger, or whatever you think I should be called).

Lex Alexander took it here:

I swear that I have never taken money -- whether directly or indirectly -- from any political campaign or government agency in exchange for any service performed in my job as a journalist and/or blogger.

I took it here:

I swear that I have never taken money or received services -- whether directly or indirectly -- from any political campaign or political group or government agency -- whether federal, state, or local -- or anyone else -- in exchange for any service performed in my job as a journalist (or commentator, or blogger, or whatever you think I should be called).

George and Russ, will you take the Dubner Oath?

I swear that neither I nor others of my family have ever received money or services -- whether directly or indirectly -- from any political campaign or political group or government agency -- whether federal, state, or local -- or anyone else -- in exchange for any service I have performed in my position in my organization or having to do with my or my organization's website or weblog.

You can probably word it better than I did here.

Gladwell on Levitt

Just a quote.

[during a debate between Malcolm Gladwell and Freakonomics author Stephen Levitt]
I glanced over at Levitt and had a realization that I'm not sure I've ever had before with an intellectual opponent - that if I made my case persuasively and cogently enough, he would change his mind. He was, in other words, listening.
(from Time, via TED)

NCFocus response to SESF disclosure

Late Monday night I posted on the background and invisible ties of the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation; in the preface I noted that George and Russ had scooped me by posting an SESF disclosure earlier that night (here's a static copy).

Due to the advanced hour and paucity of still-functioning neurons, I said I'd address their disclosure the next day. I proceeded to not get around to it, eliciting a small (and deserved) goad from Russ earlier this evening.
OK Russ, here goes:

I've been trying to be a good citizen journalist and to "trust, but verify"; however, in this case it's difficult.

For one example, take this section of the SESF disclosure:

"[to avoid conflict of interest]
At the beginning of this year (2006) ... [SESF Board members] Mr. McDaniel and I resigned from the CABPRO Board ...[and] last month [CABPRO Board member] Dr. Lyss resigned [from SESF's board]."

CABPRO's newsletters are online (as pdfs) going back to the fall of 2000*; every newsletter lists the current Board members, and there's a brief report on each new Board member as s/he joins. So the above 'disclosure' statement should be easy to check.

Except that the newsletters from this year don't list the board members, or report any changes.


Another example -

I'd expect that the re-activation of SESF at the beginning of 2006 would have been worthy of mention in the CABPRO newsletter, particularly since it entailed the resignations of board members. It would have been interesting to see what the newsletter had to say.

Except that newsletters for the 4 months from Oct. 2005 through January 2006 are absent from the online archive.

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any mention of the SESF in any of CABPRO's online 2006 newsletters? I didn't notice any.


Russ and George, 2 questions -
1. Was any deliberate effort made (by anyone, not necessarily either of you) to obscure the SESF - CABPRO connection?
2. Is there any way I could take a look at the Oct2005/Nov/Dec/Jan2006 CABPRO newsletters?


------------

Bonus link for readers:

An enlightening quote from the latest CABPRO newsletter (pdf):

"Environmentalism is not about saving the earth for people, but from them."

It's clear that recognition of anthropogenic global warming wouldn't fit comfortably into this worldview.

A look behind the curtain - the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation

Meta:

1:45 a.m. Tuesday, Nevada City [when this post was published]:
Egads, I've been scooped - prepared to hit Publish only to find that George Rebane had posted a disclosure section at the bottom of the SESF website's About page, likely within the last hour or so*.

Will comment on his disclosure tomorrow.*
-------
late Thurs. eve - commented on the SESF's "scoop" disclosure in the following post (which comes before, on the webpage).
------
Sat: fixed 'Board Members' assertion in the report below, to make it accurate

---

NCFocus report:

The enigmatic Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation (blog) is not your run-of-the-mill Nevada County nonprofit.

Local conservative blogger Russ Steele announced its launch in April:

"The Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation (SESF), a Nevada County non-profit organization, has been activated by local citizen volunteers to help bring clarity and reason to the discussion of issues facing our county and its communities. SESF's goal is to do research and produce information products that promote sane and productive community debates, and support government leaders in crafting effective solutions based upon reliable information, verifiable data, and non-partisan analysis.
...
To promote discussion and debate, SESF has created a blog ..."

SESF's About page states: "Reasoned thinking should be based on good analysis not constrained by ideology."

A week ago, in a blog-comments exchange with Russ (who is also SESF's Director of Information), I asked him how the SESF is funded. Since then I've asked George Rebane ( SESF Executive Director, Director of Research, and blogger) as well. I've asked them via blog comment - (at NCFocus, at the SESF blog, at Russ's blog), I've asked them in a blog post, and I've asked/reminded them via email*. Last Friday afternoon I was told* that disclosures would be forthcoming, but they have still not appeared.

"If you don’t explain yourself, you just invite others to do the explaining of you for you."*

A prominent online registry of charities reports that the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation is a 501(c)(3) environmental nonprofit with NTEE Code C99, signifying Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification ("Choosing a good, representative NTEE code will help your organization be more easily found by users searching our database.").

Similarly, the local.sacramento.com yellow page listings show it as an Environmental, Conservation & Ecological Organization, literally on the same page as SYRCL (the South Yuba River Citizens League), the The Nevada County Land Trust, the Placer Nature Center, Defenders of Wildlife, the Mountain Lion Foundation and others.

And AllPages.com reports it as an Environmental Group as well:

Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation
293 Lower Grass Valley Road
Nevada City, CA (California) 95959-3101
...

The listed address (293 Lower Grass Valley Rd, Nevada City; it doesn't appear on the SESF website*) - is also the address of Robinson Enterprises (known locally as Robinson Timber) and of the California Association of Business, Property and Resource Owners, aka CABPRO, a high-profile Nevada County property-rights group.

Historically, CABPRO has not exactly favored environmental protection ("What we people with commonsense are up against is neigh to incredible. A gaggle of radical leftists are trying to redefine reality for the rest of us peons and no better example is available than Wild and Scenic Rivers..."*); for background, see Mark Sabath's "The Perils Of The Property Rights Initiative: Taking Stock Of Nevada County’s Measure D", in the Harvard Environmental Law Review (PDF, as html).

The SESF website provides a one-page bio for each of its three board members - Executive Director and Director of Research George Rebane, Director of Information Russ Steele, and Director of Public Relations Michael McDaniel. These bios contain much background information, but neglect to mention that George Rebane and Michael McDaniel are bothhave both been* CABPRO Board members*, or that Russ headed Citizens for Fair and Balanced Land Use, which was CABPRO's political action committee formed in 2002 to advocate for Measure D, the narrowly defeated Nevada County property rights initiative.(pdf)

To my knowledge neither "CABPRO" nor "California Association of Business, Property and Resource Owners" appears anywhere on either the SESF website or weblog.

"non-partisan", "environmental", "clarity", "reliable information", "not constrained by ideology", "discussion and debate" ...there appears to be plenty of open space between SESF's rhetoric and reality.

CABPRO's December 2001 newsletter (pdf) promotes the SESF's nonprofit status:

"Looking for a Tax Deduction AND a Good Cause?
Then make your fully deductible donation to the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan organization based in Nevada County. SESF engages in research and educational activities to increase public support for balancing human needs with environmental concerns (i.e. putting people back into the picture)
...
SESF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, Federal ID# 77-0408400. Your donation is tax deductible as a charitable contribution for federal and state tax purposes."

I didn't find the SESF in the IRS's online Search for Charities, but absence there isn't conclusive ("Some entities eligible to receive tax deductible charitable contributions may not be listed in Publication 78..."*). So yesterday I checked with the IRS (877-829-5500*); the representative informed me that SESF (77-0408400, and she had me verify the name) was not an exempt organization, and "that's all we can tell the general public".

So, Russ Steele, George Rebane and/or Michael McDaniel - I think we need you to bring clarity here.



"If you don’t explain yourself, you just invite others to do the explaining of you for you."

Yes, the climate is changing

There's a house finch singing outside my window, and up until a year or two ago I don't recall there being house finches in Nevada City.
Interesting - its song sounds, well, abnormal. Perhaps it's an outlier in more than geography.
(or perhaps it's just young and inexperienced)

Excellent Boston Globe article putting yesterday's National Academy of Sciences report on global warming into meaningful context:

...A graph of the data has become an icon of global warming and is often referred to as "the hockey stick" because of its shape: A shaft that shows a long period of relatively little change in Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, and then a spike upward during the last 100 years or so that resembles the blade.
...
Since the first version of it was published in a scientific journal in 1998, environmentalists have seized on the graph as powerful evidence of human-induced climate change, while some critics have called it alarmist, questioning its methodology and the accuracy of its temperature data.
...
During a Washington press conference yesterday, other members of the panel said that they had a high level of confidence -- 90 percent to 95 percent -- that the planet is in its warmest period in 400 years and that the odds are "2 to 1" that this is probably the warmest period stretching back 1,000 years, as the original study concluded.

And what did The Union title their version of yesterday's AP story about the report? (Earth’s temperature highest in 400 years, or 2000, or a "a slight fever")?
They didn't print it.


BTW, we're told that George Rebane is currently working on a Disclosure page for the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation.

Questions for/on the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation

Friday morning update: no responses to (or acknowledgement of seeing) my questions in email or blog (I'd emailed a heads-up to Steele and Rebane late wed. night, shortly after posting this); I've just now left reminders in their respective blogs' comments (here and here)

-----------
In a recent comment I asked Russ Steele this question:

How is the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation (website, blog), whose Board of Directors consists of you, George Rebane, and Michael McDaniel - funded?

He responded:

Public Contributions! Send a check to the post office box on the web site.

I was hoping for a more informative answer.

So, here are some more specific questions for Russ and/or George (who I've met) or Michael (who I haven't) - could one of you please answer them, or say why you don't feel they're appropriate:

1. How long has SESF been in existence?


2. Who are its top 5 contributors, and what are the amounts?


3. Roughly what % of the SESF's total budget has come from these contributors?


4. What time period are these numbers from? (I'm assuming that an appropriate time period over which to measure would be the year 2006 to date; if another time period would be more informative, feel free to use and specify it)


5. What other local organization would you like to see similar data for? (if you provide your data, I'll make the same request for theirs)

Russ/George/Michael, if you can devote the time to providing helpful answers (to me and to my readers), I'll contribute $50 to SESF.

Bonus link for readers: SESF has recently published a report on Nevada County's [lack of] 'bird flu' pandemic planning (PDF).
... HTML, Russ, HTML ... (please)

Weather reports - past, present, future

Last evening of spring.

It seems summer intends to do that "in like a lion" thing - the National Weather Service forecast for Sacramento says

Saturday through Sunday night: Clear. Highs 102 to 110.

(Grass Valley* is scheduled to be a mere 94 to 104)

We at NCFocus are commemorating the change of seasons by being a curmudgeon.

Engaged in the obligatory annual Bluegrass Vegetation Sunday afternoon, catching the rays and decibels at the Father's Day Bluegrass Festival at the fairgrounds. View looked like this:


Be grateful, be very grateful, that I am too much of a luddite to have sound on my blog; you are thereby spared the incessant talk and giggles emanating from this:

which continued through the breaks
and through the MC's introductions
and through the upbeat songs
and through the applause
and through the quiet songs
and through my attempts at tactfully making clear the inappropriateness of said behavior.
(but finally taking the photo did seem to help)

I had an English teacher once, who reportedly improved the behavior of a talker at a classical music concert, by leaning over and thunking the offender's head while encouraging silence, but his is an approach best taken under cover of darkness.

I was thinking though...at the festival, would it be legal to carry a concealed weapon? Say, a small, loaded squirtgun; and 'reward' the offending behavior with a mysterious fluid?
(taking care, of course, to maintain one's rapt attention on the stage when the perp-turned-victim looks around for the source)

it's only a thought experiment, but I'd be curious to hear your feedback.


(disclosure: at their age I did the same thing, so it is karma, to be subjected to it now.)